• 6 phone consultations
• 12 weeks of e-mail exchanges
• 3 conference calls
• 12-15 work outs

I went from exercising  1-2 hours per day, 7 days a week, YEARS on end ... to exercising about once per week, 10 to 30 minutes per session.

• Leg press (up)- 39 second TUL increase, 4 repetition increase
• Chest Press (stable)- 5 lb increase, 5 second TUL decrease, 1 repetition decrease
• Nautilus Lat Pulldown (up)- 12 second TUL increase, 1 repetition increase

*I say 'locals' because as awesome as the line up is for this limited access ticket, I don't expect anyone to fly across the country for four speeches. People are more than welcome to of course, but I find that a bit unrealistic – hence the 'local' aspect of the ticket.

A one time, non profit, evening seminar from some of the top personal trainers in the country (and a two medical doctors, but the real gold is in the trainers!)

The Sheraton of Downtown Orlando (right across from The 21 Convention hotel)

Tuesday January 12th, 2010

Drew Baye from Baye.com and The 21 Convention 2009 (see his entire speech here for free), and Patrick Diver from GreyhoundFitness.com (Patrick was the HIT trainer who originally introduced me to Body by Science, and later Moment Arm Exercise). Needless to say, these two men have been some of the most influential in my personal education of exercise. There will also be two MD's present at the event to speak about nutrition (I don't know them however and won't vouch for them like I do Patrick and Drew).

The cost to attend is $20, although technically it's a "mandatory donation", since all profit goes to...]]>

What?

A one time, non profit, evening seminar from some of the top personal trainers in the country (and a two medical doctors, but the real gold is in the trainers!)

Where?

The Sheraton of Downtown Orlando (right across from The 21 Convention hotel)

When?

Tuesday January 12th, 2010

Who?

Drew Baye from Baye.com and The 21 Convention 2009 (see his entire speech here for free), and Patrick Diver from GreyhoundFitness.com (Patrick was the HIT trainer who originally introduced me to Body by Science, and later Moment Arm Exercise).

Needless to say, these two men have been some of the most influential in my personal education of exercise.

There will also be two MD’s present at the event to speak about nutrition (I don’t know them however and won’t vouch for them like I do Patrick and Drew).

Cost?

The cost to attend is $20, although technically it’s a “mandatory donation”, since all profit goes to two local charities - Greyhound Pets of America-Orlando and the Lion’s Club of Longwood/Lake Mary. I believe the $20 is even tax deductible.

In any case, $20 is a stupidly good price to hear from either Drew or Patrick in person, let alone both.

I’ll be there. If you live in the area, I highly recommend it.

Get tickets and check out the website here.

]]> http://www.thedreamlounge.net/2010/01/08/2010-greater-orlando-fitness-challenge-w-drew-baye-patrick-diver/feed/ 9 http://www.thedreamlounge.net/2009/12/02/facebook-fun/ http://www.thedreamlounge.net/2009/12/02/facebook-fun/#comments Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:01:44 +0000 Anthony 'Dream' Johnson http://www.thedreamlounge.net/?p=1202 my facebook, I thought it would prove interesting. In response to my post about pre, during, and post workout nutrition, a close friend wrote

just to give a counterpoint consider why men go to the gym today. Most go to increase muscle size/health/sexual attractiveness. IMO they are not concerned with doing it the "most" healthy way, but rather gaining results in the quickest and most efficient way.

My response: "Health" and increased muscle mass are always intertwined. Thinking you can only have one and not the other is erroneous at it's core. The same goes for best results and best use of time - best results require very little time.

I understand that with your beliefs, this is not the healthiest way about it. but you cannot deny that working out the way most people do is still better then sitting on the couch and eating potato chips. therefore, effectively, they are living a healthier lifestyle.

My response: Yes I can, watch me =) "Exercise" (random physical activity) the way most...]]>

This is the re-posting of a recent discussion on my facebook, I thought it would prove interesting.

In response to my post about pre, during, and post workout nutrition, a close friend wrote

just to give a counterpoint

consider why men go to the gym today. Most go to increase muscle size/health/sexual attractiveness. IMO they are not concerned with doing it the “most” healthy way, but rather gaining results in the quickest and most efficient way.

My response:

“Health” and increased muscle mass are always intertwined. Thinking you can only have one and not the other is erroneous at it’s core. The same goes for best results and best use of time – best results require very little time.

I understand that with your beliefs, this is not the healthiest way about it. but you cannot deny that working out the way most people do is still better then sitting on the couch and eating potato chips. therefore, effectively, they are living a healthier lifestyle.

My response:

Yes I can, watch me =)

“Exercise” (random physical activity) the way most people perform it, is quite damaging, and serves no real physiological (beneficial) purpose.

see here for further info

http://baye.com/something-is-not-always-better-than-nothing/

you are a perfect example of this. even though there is no proof that you are extremely healthy, I also can’t say that you are not healthy. but by the standards set forth by todays society, considering how many YEARS you have worked out, you are not near the muscle size of your peers that are doing things the “modern” way.

I’m not denying you your results, however, considering your cost/result ratio, you are not nearly to being the most efficient way of going about living a healthy lifestyle. People need a lot of dedication and devotion to go about doing things the way you feel they need to be done. looking at history, other then a few exceptional human beings, people will not go out of their way to achieve something… not usually unless it’s something clear within their reach.

My response:

Not following. My cost is low and results are high – where is the flaw? How much dedication is required to work out once a week, or less? Eating is a different story, but not so different as to be “in it’s own ball field”. Simple changes are all that is required – some may view them as extreme, but that is a perspective, not inherent to the changes (eliminating grains and beans for example).

Adding fuel to the fire

These were quick responses I made on Facebook and have not been edited other than a quick capitalization here and the addition of italics there.

To go further

even though there is no proof that you are extremely healthy, I also can’t say that you are not healthy.

The flaw in thinking is “extremely healthy” here. Healthy is one of those vaguely defined words – like exercise – that most people have individual visions of. My definition of “healthy” (off the top of my head) is a lack of disease, a high level of skeletal muscle mass in relation to my genetic potential and age, a strong immune system, and a lack of habits that promote future problems (eating grain, “cardio”, etc).

Furthermore, “extremley healthy” supports the idea of super health, which despite what the latest raw food revolution fanatic says, does not exist. Our bodies are meant to function a certain way, and all we can do is allow them to operate in that fashion. We do this by eating “properly”, and exercise intelligently (consciously/rationally).

“Enhancing” your health above it’s set base line is pure non sense (with the minor exception of additional muscle mass).

considering how many YEARS you have worked out, you are not near the muscle size of your peers that are doing things the “modern” way.

Comparing yourself to others (in nearly any field, not just exercise), is largely useless, and at times counter productive. When it comes to my own progress (in anything), I look first and foremost to myself, my own standards, and my own goals. With exercise genetic potential also comes into play, and some people are simply above the norm and would be “jacked” or “ripped” no matter what they did for “exercise”.

My results are not only real, but are a direct result of my actions. 19 pounds of muscle in 11 months may not be much for some people, but far exceeds my own expectations – and considering my age (21), probably puts me at least somewhere close to my “current” potential, unlike many of the gym fanatics we see running around large gyms 5-7 days a week with results likely not near their potential (even if their “results” appear to be far more “advanced” than my own).

To put the icing on the cake, the way I train is as safe as possible- for now, and later. I have trained for many years, and can hardly name a handful of individuals (that I have observed personally) who could claim the same.

]]> http://www.thedreamlounge.net/2009/12/02/facebook-fun/feed/ 5 http://www.thedreamlounge.net/2009/11/19/follow-up-interview-with-bill-de-simone/ http://www.thedreamlounge.net/2009/11/19/follow-up-interview-with-bill-de-simone/#comments Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:20:19 +0000 Anthony 'Dream' Johnson http://www.thedreamlounge.net/?p=1178 As promised, my latest interpretation of mixing the concepts between MAE and Body by Science. Also, be sure to check this interview out from Conditioning Research. It's a great follow up to my recent interview with Bill about Moment Arm Exercise. New videos from Bill are included at the bottom of the interview as well (regarding congruent exercise for the chest).]]>

As promised, my latest interpretation of mixing the concepts between MAE and Body by Science.

Also, be sure to check this interview out from Conditioning Research.

It’s a great follow up to my recent interview with Bill about Moment Arm Exercise. New videos from Bill are included at the bottom of the interview as well (regarding congruent exercise for the chest).

]]> http://www.thedreamlounge.net/2009/11/19/follow-up-interview-with-bill-de-simone/feed/ 36 http://www.thedreamlounge.net/2009/11/15/the-down-low-on-cardio-and-latest-thoughts/ http://www.thedreamlounge.net/2009/11/15/the-down-low-on-cardio-and-latest-thoughts/#comments Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:43:16 +0000 Anthony 'Dream' Johnson http://www.thedreamlounge.net/?p=1150

Estimated read time: 7 minutes

I've written about “cardio” from time to time on this blog, but not much recently. This post will serve as a primer to catch people up to speed, as well as detail new ideas about “cardio”.

Let's start strong, shall we?

1. The conventional notion of “cardio” is a complete and total fallacy.

It is every bit as erroneous as limiting saturated fat in the diet and eating copious amounts of grain and other carbohydrate rich "foods".

In no way, shape, or form is low intensity* physical activity optimal or even necessary for best...]]>

Estimated read time: 7 minutes

I’ve written about “cardio” from time to time on this blog, but not much recently. This post will serve as a primer to catch people up to speed, as well as detail new ideas about “cardio”.

Let’s start strong, shall we?

1. The conventional notion of “cardio” is a complete and total fallacy.

It is every bit as erroneous as limiting saturated fat in the diet and eating copious amounts of grain and other carbohydrate rich “foods”.

In no way, shape, or form is low intensity* physical activity optimal or even necessary for best results and the maintenance of “vibrant health”.

That’s right, our aerobic quest for immortality (as Kurt G Hariss has put it) is a fools errand ─ one I subscribed to for many years. At one point I was running a weekly half marathon, swimming 60+ minutes at a time, jumping rope for 2+ hours a week, and various other forms of what we, as a society, call “cardio”.

*Walking, and equivalent activities, are not “bad” for your health. However as soon as you break into something equivalent to a “jog”, any minimal benefits immediately cease and the negative effects begin.

2. What’s the problem with “cardio”?

Well for one, it does a very poor job of working your cardiovascular system. A paradox, yes, but never the less true.

The heart and lungs respond to the demand imposed on them by the muscles. When that demand is low, next to nothing happens (or, negative adaptations are made).

Which isn’t surprising in the face of evolution. Steady state “aerobic” activity is a very modern, logical concept. It’s the nutritional equivalent of eating grain and beans.

At no point in our millions of years of evolution did we ever adapt to long duration “endurance” events. At most, this is what went on─ and even that is stretching it a bit IMO.

Can we travel long distances without stopping? Sure we can, people have run hundreds of miles without stopping─ but just because we can doesn’t mean we should.

*By the same token, we can eat grains as “food”, but that doesn’t mean we should, and it certainly doesn’t make grain “food” for humans.

The most common knee-jerk response to this notion is that “you don’t know that” (and then the typical romantic assertions about our ancestors and their daily habits).

My response?

Short of traveling back in time, I do “know” this.

How so?

Simple, starvation was our biggest threat as a species for millions of years.

Ever heard the phrase “work up an appetite”?

Well for ancient man, “working up an appetite” after a 20+ mile stroll in the wilderness (like he was ever doing this) would have meant certain death without the pay off of a large amount of food, that he could somehow bring back to wherever he was living at the time (20+ miles away), and cook.

He also had to provide food for any buddies that were with him hunting the animal, probably help support the rest of the tribe, and fend off any predators looking to eat what he and the rest of the party had (hopefully) hunted down.

“Cardio” to that degree, simply wasn’t happening. The risk was too great for too risky a pay off, and therefore, we are not evolved to perform it.

3. Stepping back for a moment, the heart and lungs support everything.

Doug Mcguff says it well in this video.

I won’t repeat what Doug says so well in that video, but I will add that linking steady state long duration activities (running, cycling, swimming, etc), to the cardiovascular system, is the metaphoric equivalent of ripping your heart and lungs out, plopping them on a treadmill, and saying “go”.

Of course, that’s ridiculous to no end, but what’s not so funny is that this is exactly what most people believe. Virtually every “trainer” you will find at a gym, most medical doctors, and even your friends & family.

*In fact these “informed” people are the ones who will most vehemently defend the position, no matter how silly it appears from a third person’s perspective.

As an alarming by product, believing in this notion allows a lot of unhealthy people , to believe they are “healthy”, if they simply hop on a tread mill 3 times a week for 20 minutes a pop.

This is absurd.

In fact as I linked earlier, doing enough of this non sense can contribute to heart problems. In addition, and IMO, the oxidative stress from a ton of “cardio” is enough to contribute to plaque build up in the heart, and cause dangerous side effects (such as… death).

Not to mention bone and joint problems ─ even without the shock (as in the case of swimming).

Which again, is a paradox. The people harmed the most from cardio are the very people doing their best to prevent ill health with their current knowledge.

It’s a recurring theme in life though ─ what you resist persists (and/or intensifies).

The same can be said for vegetarianism (regardless of the purpose or reasoning), and current health care reform.

4. Stepping back once again, to the “work up an appetite” quote, “cardio” does nothing in the way of lowering body fat.

But how so? Doesn’t it burn all those evil calories?

No, not really.

A lot less calories are burnt in steady state activity than most people think. On top of that, there are about 3,500 calories in a pound of human fat.

So if 500 calories tick by on a tread mill for 60 minutes, you have used 1/7 ^th a pound of fat for energy.

1/7 ^th

Think about how insignificant that is for a second, before I share the bad news ─ you can consume 500 calories in under a minute.

In fact, I do all the time in the form of a shake. I could probably down the whole thing (over 1,000 calories sometimes) in under a minute if I tried.

Combine that with the fact that “cardio” causes an increase in appetite, and presto ─ more calories consumed than you would have without the activity. But the calorie part is borderline irrelevant, since the “healthy” food most people eat spikes insulin through the roof, which contributes hundreds of times more to the obesity epidemic than excess calories ever could.

Let’s break this down again for clarification.

• An over-fat person hops on a treadmill for 60 minutes, and 500 calories tick by (a ~third of which would have been “burnt” by sitting in a chair and watching that person run)
• Person get’s off treadmill, and is soon hungry.
• In an effort to “eat healthy”, that person now eats not only more “food” (from the physical activity), but now eats more of what caused him or her to be over-fat in the first place.

It’s sick, and cyclical.

5. But isn’t something better than nothing?

No one has written better about this subject than Drew Baye,

In my own words, doing “cardio” in an effort to do something , is akin to drinking salt water to quench your thirst.

Salt water of course will only dehydrate you, and kill you in a survival situation.

By the same token, “cardio” does nothing positive for your health (that can’t be had by better modalities such as walking, reading a book, being social, and properly conducted strength training), and at worst can be detrimental to your health ─ not to mention a complete waste of time.

The Good Stuff

For those that have been here a while, some fresh information.

For those that are new to the above information, I apologize if any of it came off as “inflammatory”. It is not my intention to push anyone away from this site, but I call things as I see them on TDL, without compromise, for both you the reader, and my own mental health .

Since adopting principles in Moment Arm Exercise , I have stopped rushing through my exercises.

This initially (mostly) came out of necessity ─ the intensity was too great for each individual exercise. I believe this was due to the changes I made to my exercises for the purpose of “congruence”, as well as many months of training in a high intensity fashion (a skill).

This is actually what I find most interesting about “congruence” in exercise (at least the way I practice it).

By eliminating or limiting the duration your muscles in their “weak points”, during an exercise under significant load, the “intensity” is dramatically increased. You essentially get rid of the “rest point” as seen in the top of a Nautilus Pull-down or the end of most leg presses, and presto─ your muscles are (almost) always contracting at their peak instead of the

• easy
• hard
• easy

process seen in “full range of motion”.

Illustrated, it looks like

• hard
• very hard
• hard

Considering this, I found it impossible to move instantly from exercise to exercise as I once did using full range of motion and Nautilus or MedX machines. If I did, my intensity was significantly hindered simply because I was out of breath and exhausted from the previous exercise.

So I had to choose, “cardio”, or intensity in my exercises. I chose the latter.

Why?

Well for starters, I don’t take my sweet time between exercises. I do the exercise, record my stats, and move to the next exercise. I am not in a rush, and usually wait 1-2 minutes. Basically I move as fast as I can, without compromising my intensity to any degree (so I wait as long as is necessary).

My total time spent “exercising” is identical, but I’m in the gym significantly longer due to the rest between exercises.

But getting more Bill Nye on you guys, I no longer believe there are any substantial benefits to “rushing between exercises” in some frantic pace.

Would my “cardio” be better if I did? Maybe, maybe not. I don’t believe it has been proven either way yet (I have yet to notice a difference in my dodge ball performance), and even if it were, what difference would it make?

*I’m somehow doubting my heart would become invincible.

What I do believe to be true though, is that “cardio” (more properly labeled “metabolic conditioning”) is fickle. It can come and go relatively quickly, and is not a long term, physiological adaptation by the body .

New muscle (and the corresponding adaptations of the heart, lungs, connective tissues and so forth) is a long term adaptation though.

It’s an expensive investment by the body, and it’s here to stay barring any unusual circumstances (multi-month lay offs from training, severe trauma related injuries, being bound to a bed and immobile, severe calorie restriction, etc).

The one upside I see to “rushing between exercises” though is that it makes high intensity training, seem less radical, since it then fits into the current notion of “cardio”.

It “covers all the bases” as I’ve heard.

Which is a good thing if it gets people to stop running around like hamsters on a wheel, but for those more experienced, I just think it’s unnecessary.

If you can make the intellectual leap that “cardio” doesn’t exist, I suggest trying to allow more time between exercises and seeing if you make any sudden gains in your training.

I have, and I haven’t dropped dead of a heart attack yet.

]]> http://www.thedreamlounge.net/2009/11/15/the-down-low-on-cardio-and-latest-thoughts/feed/ 17